Hurricane Maria Destroys Puerto Rico's Science Programs Then Presents Unusual Research Opportunities?

Source: Union of Concerned Scientists

The devastation caused by Hurricane Maria is still being revealed nearly a year and a half after the storm ripped through the island.  Of course, anyone who has lived through a disaster like this will tell you that the island will probably never recover.  Not to mention that the loss of life can never be replaced.  With that being said, any community (or island) must find the courage to recover and re-establish life as it were if possible.  

Under normal conditions, agencies such as FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) would provide sufficient funds to help the island start the journey toward recovery.  Unfortunately, we do not live in normal conditions at the current moment under the current administration.  Funding agencies are being stressed beyond reach for existing funds and when this occurs, areas like scientific research usually suffer the most. 

How Did Maria Impact Science?

At the very least, the lightest impact (which actually may not be true due to PTSD), the lab members may undergo treatment to make sure that there are no residual medical issues after a storm has hit the island.  Of course, if you have no laboratory staff: graduate students, undergraduate students, postdoc's, professional researchers -- then you have no lab.  Meaning, all the best equipment can occupy the lab, but without scientists to run and monitor the instruments, then there is no lab.



The second critical component of any scientific laboratory are the scientific instruments and infrastructure in which these along with the supplies (beakers, tubing, cell cultures, glove boxes, etc.) needed to conduct good/sound science.  This is sometimes the perceived most critical component of any scientific laboratory.  Although, I would argue that the scientists which occupy any laboratory are the most critical components to any scientific instruments.  I have yet to see any scientific instrument just start collecting data by itself without any scientist's intervention/initiation.

A recent article in 'The Scientist' titled "Science in Puerto Rico Still Recovering After Hurricane Maria" details some of the disastrous consequences to a scientific laboratory after a storm of a magnitude such as Hurricane Maria.  The human damage alone can be irreplaceable not to mention the buildings and local municipal utility grid.  And when the destruction to the infrastructure is considered, parameters such as mold and water damage can set a laboratory recovery back several months to years:

Giray’s lab is among 14 or so in the Julio Garcia Diaz biology building, which was among those severely damaged, particularly as it was already undergoing roof repairs when the storm hit. Water seeped in through the roof and windows, damaging costly research equipment, furniture, and lab materials. Toxic mold thrived in the moist, hot climate, creating hazardous conditions that made the building uninhabitable. Power outages cut off researchers’ freezers and fridges, destroying precious genetic and tissue samples for good. The damages are estimated to range from $250,000 up to $2.5 million dollars per lab in that building, says Giray, a behavioral biologist whose main focus is honeybees.

Even more important are samples which are collected outside of the laboratory or purchased for several thousand dollars which are sensitive to temperature/humidity/vibrational fluctuations:

Some of the casualties from the hurricane are less easy to restore: “Collections take much longer time and may never be replaced,” says Giray’s colleague Riccardo Papa, who lost almost all of his DNA samples documenting the diversity of butterflies across South America when his lab’s –80 °C freezer lost electricity. Papa, an evolutionary biologist, didn’t have a lab again until a week ago, and until recently has been meeting with his students and postdocs at coffee shops or places around campus to discuss research. He has been able to do some experiments and genetic analyses in another building. Repairs are still underway for the damaged insectary, in which his team raises butterflies.

Research must go on.  With or without the infrastructure.  Here in California, after the Northridge Earthquake in 1994, FEMA set up temporary 'mobile homes' to serve as both classrooms and temporary offices along with laboratories in certain circumstances.  To hear that 'group meetings' were still being held at coffee shops is a testament to the pace of recovery.  In a majority of cases after a disaster, classroom recovery comes first, then eventually research laboratories.  Although, it is worth remembering that each research laboratory group is made up of students and research professors who take years (applying for individual grants/writing publications) to acquire the appropriate funding to purchase research scientific instrumentation.  Therefore, to put a price on the total loss in the event of a disaster like Hurricane Maria proves extremely difficult.



The total cost to a researcher is really unknowable for years to come.  Some researchers never recover and decide to shut down their laboratories after such a storm.  Which leaves current graduate students without an end in sight to their degrees (M.A. and PhD).  Additionally, staff (professional researchers) might quickly find themselves out of work and have to leave regions like Puerto Rico and find work elsewhere.  Which means transplanting their families and children's education to a different geographical location.  The cost can be severe not just to the researcher themselves.



More can be written in future articles on this theme of disasters and research laboratories.  Either together or separately.  The total cost to a geographical location from a disaster such as Hurricane Maria can only be estimated at the beginning (a very rough approximation).  The price tag evolves over time with the disbursement of emergency funds by organizations such as FEMA along with other federal organizations or the Congress.  The terrible destruction to a scientific institution is terrible to say the least.  Restoring science should be a high priority among others on the island of Puerto Rico.

Related Blog Posts:


Parameters: What Research/Science Is Affected During A Government Shutdown?


What does a Government Shutdown look like?


What is the difference between General Anxiety Disorder and Trump Anxiety Disorder?


Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!


Puerto Rico Aid Should Not Be A Partisan (Political) Issue


Natural Disasters Hit, What Happens to School Students?

Richard Branson's Son Produces Short Films To Illustrate The Devastation By Hurricane Irma

Natural Disasters Have Long Term Effects Which Are Quickly Forgotten?

What is the next big step in Mental Health Research?

Puerto Rico Crops Devastated By Hurricane Maria

Parameters: "How widespread within NASA is the conviction that human activity is responsible for climate change?"

Source: The Weekly Standard

Climate change is a hot topic issue.  Different people fall onto different ends of the spectrum on the 'causes' of climate change.  Climate skeptics have held onto the notion that a component attributable to the daily operations of humans on Earth does not figure prominently into the overall equation which represents 'cause.'   Whereas, people who believe in the component of climate change attributable to 'man made' are on the other end.  In between lie people with varying percentages of the two dispositions.



To address the question listed in the title of the article, Astrophysicist Dr. Michelle Thaller, who works for NASA was interviewed by Big Think produced a video interview titled "Does NASA have any climate change skeptics?" gave the following answer:

Michelle Thaller: Hi Jay. So your question is how widespread is it within NASA that scientists are convinced that human activity is responsible for climate change? And this is something that is important to say very, very clearly. I have known and worked with hundreds of earth scientists at many different locations in NASA, all of them, all of them believe that human activity is responsible for the current climate change that we see going so fast it's almost unprecedented. I want you to think about that.

One thing that I take really seriously and I'm very proud of is that NASA is not a political organization. We are scientists that work for the American people. We're funded by taxpayer's money. And what we do is we make measurements. We have many, many different satellites that are orbiting the earth right now they're looking at things like ice on the oceans and at the poles, they're looking for things like vegetation growth and the change of that, ocean level, is the ocean level rising? Yeah it turns out that it is. So we have many scientists all over the planet studying all of the different ramifications of climate change. We understand the causes. There actually is no scientific controversy about that. Humans are releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and this is warming our planet.

Now what scientists are researching currently, and they don't all agree about, is what are the most important components of driving climate change. Is it carbon dioxide? Could it be something else like methane? When methane gets released that's an even more powerful greenhouse gas. We don't agree on how quickly things like the ocean level will rise. People have different estimates for how quickly that will happen. So there still is scientific controversy about what the most important aspects of climate change are and how quickly it will go in the future, but there is no scientific disagreement within NASA that humans are causing climate change.

Now I started this off by saying that one of the things I'm very proud of is that NASA is not political. And what that means for me is that I cannot advocate for any specific solution to climate change. That's not my job. That's up to policymakers. People might suggest things like having more solar energy or cutting carbon emissions or things like that, but at NASA we really understand that's not us, that's up to the American people, our leaders and leaders around the world. What we do is provide the facts to everybody on the planet. All of our data is actually free to any government, any person, any scientist all over the world that wants to use it. So we all know what's causing climate change, we can't tell you what to do about it but we can say it's time to do something about it.

I particularly like the ending where Dr. Thaller states that her job is not to convince people of the human component (or any other for that matter) which contributes to climate change.  What is her job is to present the scientific data and let the chips fall where they may -- on the policy (and human) side.  Data speaks for itself.  The data shows an upward trend to the overall effects of global warming over the period.  That is what the data shows.



Regardless of where you lie on the spectrum, science should not be taken for granted.  Each of us should aspire to learn at the very least how science plays into our daily lives.  Further, we should be concerned when scientific data points in one direction while policy points in the other.  That is when the data should be presented again -- or we should revisit the data to remind ourselves of the future.  At the end of the day, each of us will show up to the poll or make our minds up regarding 'cause' and 'solutions' to grand issues facing life on Earth.  The best we can do is gather as much data on which to base our future decisions on.  Happy New Year!



Related Blog Posts:


Senator Carper Blasts Environmental Protection Agency For Considering Relaxing 'Mercury and Air Toxics Standard'?


What does a Government Shutdown look like?


What is the difference between General Anxiety Disorder and Trump Anxiety Disorder?


Congress Gets Involved In Beef Recall


How Effective Are Poultry Corporations At Reducing Salmonella In Their Products?


NIDA Director Nora Volkow: How Health Communicators and Journalists Can Help Replace Stigma with Science


Governor Jerry Brown Leads The U.S. With Ambitious Calls For 100% Renewable By 2045 -- Wow!!!


Thoughts: An example letter of opposition to repealing the 2015 Clean Waters Rule


EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%


Chemical Safety Board's Future Uncertain as Hurricane Season Approaches


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals


President Trump Just Allowed Greater Environmental Risk To Children's Health


Thoughts: Senator Bernie Sanders Asks Public To Get Involved In The Public Process At Any Level


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations


Coal Magnate Murray Shames Fossil Fuel Industry For Being "Forward Thinkers" For Energy


Democrats Question EPA Adminstrator Scott Pruitt On Historical Job Cuts At EPA


There Is No Climate Debate -- Scientific Facts Have Settled The Issue?

Why Would A President Choose To Deregulate The Environmental Protection Agency?

A Republican Senator Votes "NO" For EPA Nominee Scott Pruitt For The Environment?

Write Your Elected Official And They Will Write Back?

The Executive Director Of The American Meteorological Society Educates President Trump On Climate Change

Source: Physics.Org

Regardless of your view on climate change, the idea that change is not occurring around us as a result of actions over time is a far reaching concept.  Government officials (elected officials) -- senate and congressional leaders are in agreement.  Although, constituents may influence their ability to relay their position in a public forum.  Why?  Furthermore, why does our President of the United States feel such a compelling force to step in front of a camera and take a stance counter to what scientific evidence points to as being true?  To counter the misinformation spread by the President on an interview, the Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) stepped up and wrote a letter in opposition to his actions.  Lets take a small step back before showing the letter written in opposition to the President.  What is the AMS?



The American Meteorological Society consists of more than 13,000 scientists with the following mission:

The American Meteorological Society advances the atmospheric and related sciences, technologies, applications, and services for the benefit of society.

With a historical context as follows:

 Founded in 1919, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) is the nation’s premier scientific and professional organization promoting and disseminating information about the atmospheric, oceanic, and hydrologic sciences. Our more than 13,000 members include researchers, educators, students, enthusiasts, broadcasters and other professionals in weather, water, and climate.

With this introduction to the Meteorological Society in mind, here is the letter from the Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society below:

16 October 2018

President Donald J. Trump

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Trump:

The interview with Lesley Stahl on “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday, 14 October, included several questions related to climate change, reflecting the fact that this is an issue of vital importance to the nation. You raised several points in your replies that provide an opportunity for input from the scientific and science policy communities.

There is an overwhelming body of scientific evidence that shows that the warming global climate we have been experiencing in recent decades is primarily caused by human activity and that current long-term warming trends cannot be expected to reverse if no action is taken. These conclusions come from multiple independent lines of evidence. As is standard for the scientific process, each of these lines of evidence has undergone rigorous testing and has overcome all credible challenges. They reinforce one another and there are no contradictory lines of evidence that withstand scientific scrutiny. As a result, the basic scientific conclusions about climate change are extremely robust.

There are highly promising risk management options — ones that can reduce the risks of climate change, strengthen the U.S. economy, and promote job creation. Nevertheless, choices about whether and how to respond are complex, as you noted in your interview. People can welcome and accept the basic scientific assessments and still reach different conclusions about what to do. Many options would be consistent with your policy priorities.

You also said that scientists are making this political, which is misleading and very damaging. The scientific community welcomes all who commit to the pursuit of understanding through science irrespective of their political views, religious beliefs, and ethical values. As an institution, the American Meteorological Society takes no political positions and we proudly count among our members both individuals who strongly support you and those who routinely disagree. We are stronger for the breadth of our membership.

The American Meteorological Society would welcome the opportunity to work with your staff to ensure that they have full access to credible and scientifically validated information as you navigate the many difficult policy areas impacted by the Earth’s changing climate. We are confident that viable solutions exist and that they can be fruitfully developed if the best available knowledge and understanding is applied to the issues at hand.

Sincerely,

Keith L. Seitter 

As stated so clearly by Director Keith Seitter in the letter above, the evidence for climate change and the human component is overwhelming and robust.   The letter above is provided to the reader (you) to observe the evidence (support) that is sent to the President of the United States -- which he is obviously ignoring.  Scientific evidence is ignored?  Amazing.



The science is clear along with the growing support for the reality of change - which is greatly needed.  How to get that change implemented is unknown at the moment.  I will suggest though that part of the solution lies within each of us -- which is to say -- each of us should educate ourselves on the issue at hand and the scientific evidence which is being presented.  That education does not necessarily rely upon a college education,  just looking at the world around us.  As an example of this point, an article from 'The Scientist' titled "Sports Videos Give Clues to Climate Change" reports a new method used by scientists to observe the effects of climate change:

Over the course of five weeks, Van Langenhove identified 46 individual trees and shrubs that had been caught on film from multiple angles, giving the team 523 images to use to track when the plants leafed and flowered each year, and to measure the size of the leaves. When analyzing the data, the team found that during races that took place in the 1980s, almost no trees or shrubs on the course had begun to flower, and only 26 percent showed any leaves. But from 2006 onward, 45 percent of the same woody plants had started to leaf and 67 percent had started flowering by the time the cyclists hit the road in early April. And when the team correlated the plant data with local climate data—which have logged a temperature increase of 1.5 °C since 1980—the researchers found a solid link between warmer winter temperatures and earlier leafing and flowering (MEE, 9:1874–82, 2018).

The realization that video taken by an international sports organization could serve as a 'standard' for qualitatively observing the ecological changes associated with differing climates over time was ingenious.  This work shows that a person does not have to be educated (a formal education) to contribute to the evidence associated with climate research.  Each of us are scientists at heart as I have stated before.



Related Blog Posts:


Scientists compare Misinformation In Mainstream News to a Viral Infection

EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%

135 Climate Scientists Urge Prime Minister Theresa May to Challenge President Trump on his Climate Stance during visit to the UK

Why Is International Climate Action Important To Your Higher Education Institution?

Scientists Write President Trump Regarding Climate Action

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement


A Good Start: Republicans Accept Climate Change As Real

There Is No Climate Debate -- Scientific Facts Have Settled The Issue?

How Can The Paris Climate Agreement Be "More Favorable To The U.S."???

Republicans Endorse Carbon Tax For Climate Change? Wow

EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?

Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan

Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice

French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations